Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
Like Tree15Likes

Thread: Not walking when you nick it? That's cheating!

  1. #1
    State Captain Stapel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,803

    Not walking when you nick it? That's cheating!

    So says Mark Nicholas in an article on cricinfo

    In my own cricket league, which is the furthest away form top level cricket imaginable, there is a pretty fair understanding that the batsman knows better than the (inexperienced) umpire anyway. So we simply go by the batsman's decision. Hardly ever goes wrong.

    I guess that doesn't work at Test level. If a batsman doesn't nick it, yet is given out, he doesn't have the right to stay in! Though he does have the option to review it!

    Mark Nicholas states the following in his article:

    Pretty much always, batsmen know whether or not they have hit the ball, and if they have, well, they are out.
    But is that really so? During this summer's Ashes, we've seen Michael Clarke review, whereas he had clearly nicked it. And we've seen Joe Root no reviewing, while he had clearly not nicked it.

    So, would it really work, even if batsmen were all being honoust?

  2. #2
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,733
    I can't believe anyone can still come out with "the batsman knows if he's hit it" rubbish after the Ashes.

  3. #3
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,256
    Well if we didn't have proof that Nicholas was a complete dunderhead, we do now. Rubbish article and rubbish opinion
    HeathDavisSpeed likes this.
    Proud member of the Indian STFU: Sane Tendulkar Fanboy Union.
    Our motto: Sachin WAG, Don>>>Sachin

  4. #4
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,256
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    I can't believe anyone can still come out with "the batsman knows if he's hit it" rubbish after the Ashes.
    I was under the impression that most of the batsmen in the Ashes chose/didn't choose to review more out of fear that the nick wouldn't show up on hot spot than with them not knowing whether they'd nicked it.
    But yeah, For the slightest of feathers, it's possible that the batsman doesn't know


  5. #5
    State Captain Stapel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,803
    Quote Originally Posted by OverratedSanity View Post
    I was under the impression that most of the batsmen in the Ashes chose/didn't choose to review more out of fear that the nick wouldn't show up on hot spot than with them not knowing whether they'd nicked it.
    But yeah, For the slightest of feathers, it's possible that the batsman doesn't know
    Michael Clarke reviewed one he had clearly nicked. One would think he would only have reviewed it, if he was pretty damn sure he didn't nick it! Makes one wonder....

  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,808
    The hoariest of hoary old chestnuts in the game.

    I played a reasonable amount of cricket in my younger days at a very low standard where the umpire was generally a member of your own team or occasionally some welcome guest who had little or no idea of the finer points of the laws but was happy just to be involved. That sort of cricket won't work if batsmen don't walk and I always did and I don't ever remember there being an "incident" when someone didn't - heck some folk even walked for lbws, although I don't ever remember doing that.

    What I didn't do was unilaterally walk - I would wait for appeals and just occasionally got a feather that the fielding side didn't notice and I have to say I really struggle with the concept that it is possible as a batsman to make any sort of contact with the ball without realising it, and its not the sound, its more through the sense of touch that you realise it.

    But it seems it is possible - Dennis Amiss was a noted walker and once, in a Test against India when he was still struggling for his Test place, he walked for a bat pad when India appealed and later got a bollocking from Alan Knott, the non-striker, who told him in no uncertain terms that he hadn't got within a bull's roar of the ball - I had the pleasure of chatting to Mr Amiss a few months ago and he confirmed the story and that he genuinely had no idea whether he had hit the ball or not, but assumed he must have because of the confidence of the appeal

    So I am now prepared to believe that there are times when the batsman doesn't know, and of course it follows that there must be many more when the fieldsman isn't sure but its not cheating for him to appeal, so I don't think its cheating for the batter to stay put - I'd much rather everyone walked, but they never will
    JBMAC likes this.

  7. #7
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,256
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    So I am now prepared to believe that there are times when the batsman doesn't know, and of course it follows that there must be many more when the fieldsman isn't sure but its not cheating for him to appeal, so I don't think its cheating for the batter to stay put - I'd much rather everyone walked, but they never will
    Pretty much this.
    Gilchrist is probably the most consistent walker but are we to brand him a cheat because he claimed a catch which wasn't within sneezing distance of Dravid's bat in Sydney? Sometimes, you just don't know... Most of the time as fielders, sometimes as batsmen. Branding non-walkers as cheats just opens a can of worms
    Last edited by OverratedSanity; 03-10-2013 at 04:44 AM.

  8. #8
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    5,732
    Bowlers are never chastised when they go up for a catch and it isn't out but it's given anyway, so why should batsmen be branded cheats when they go by the umpire's decision? It blows my mind tbh, at test level (and any level of cricket where you have a decent umpire) it's gonna even out pretty well as far as decisions go, you get some your way, some go against you, just let that be the order and do what the umpire says - simple, no one is cheating if they simply do what the umpire says.
    Proudly supporting the world's no 1 spin bowler Rangana Herath and the mighty Sri Lankans!

    I even made a domestic thread

  9. #9
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cloud Cuckoo Land
    Posts
    11,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximas View Post
    Bowlers are never chastised when they go up for a catch and it isn't out but it's given anyway, so why should batsmen be branded cheats when they go by the umpire's decision? It blows my mind tbh, at test level (and any level of cricket where you have a decent umpire) it's gonna even out pretty well as far as decisions go, you get some your way, some go against you, just let that be the order and do what the umpire says - simple, no one is cheating if they simply do what the umpire says.
    I think you're being too simplistic there - on that basis lying in court would be acceptable as long as the Judge believed you, which it clearly isn't, or at least I don't think so anyway

  10. #10
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,150
    Even if what Nicholas said was mostly true it still doesn't allow for the situation where the player simply gets it wrong, which is bound to happen because they're only human.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  11. #11
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    5,732
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    I think you're being too simplistic there - on that basis lying in court would be acceptable as long as the Judge believed you, which it clearly isn't, or at least I don't think so anyway
    it's a simple thing, the umpire gets some right and some wrong, I'm saying there is no reason for the batsman to tip the balance in the favour of the bowler.

  12. #12
    International Regular OverratedSanity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Chennai, India
    Posts
    3,256
    Leaving aside all the cheating nonsense, if everyone walked, it would take a great deal away from the spectacle of the game, imo. Not walking when you know you're out may not be the "gentlemanly" thing to do, but one of the best aspects of watching cricket is the bowling side going up in appeal and that nerve-racking half a second ( five seconds if the umpires Bucknor) before the umpire comes to a decision. Purely from the point of view of a spectator, the game would be poorer if everyone just walked

  13. #13
    International Debutant adub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,827
    Playing in park cricket I would always walk if I knicked one and we didn't have neutral umpires. Just felt it's not like we're playing for sheep stations and it wasn't the sort of pressure you should put on your team mates. Unfortunately played against and with plenty of guys who didn't see it like that.

    A neutral ump though it was definitely a case of let him make the call - I know I got enough howlers to more than compensate for the few I got away with.

    I do agree with fredfertang though on bat pad stuff. I never had any doubts about what ones I'd got a piece of when it was just a drive or cut or pull. You just know. But against the spinners with bat hitting pad half the time you wouldn't have any idea. Can't expect walking then.

  14. #14
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,048
    Christ this again.

    Look, those who walk can have their opinion and lay on as much pressure as they like but for all their sanctimonious bleating, one thing will never change and that's the right of a batsman to stand their ground, wait for an appeal and the umpire to send them on their way or not. This is literally the most pointless cricketing debate of all time.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 03-10-2013 at 06:30 AM.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,071
    Ive always considered that Mark Nicholas represented much I disliked about cricketers and this just adds further fuel.
    HeathDavisSpeed likes this.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Nick Name XI
    By Hurricane in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 29-09-2011, 05:34 PM
  2. Nick Knight ?
    By dass in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-02-2007, 03:44 PM
  3. Walking
    By Stumped in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 26-12-2006, 04:27 AM
  4. Walking
    By Buddhmaster in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-11-2004, 07:23 AM
  5. Walking
    By Craig in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 27-10-2004, 12:02 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •